[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]I dont see God Shamgod and Jameel Pugh bringing that in right away.[/QUOTE]Those two choices are masterful. You sir are an artist. Props.
Printable View
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]I dont see God Shamgod and Jameel Pugh bringing that in right away.[/QUOTE]Those two choices are masterful. You sir are an artist. Props.
The owners may mess around and destroy the NBA with this "run it like a business" talk because they are currently regulated as if they are charities.
[QUOTE=Hater]Now you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say it'd be exactly the same, but the NBA could still operate. The same way the league was still able to operate after losing its biggest stars to retirement. The league is bigger than any one or group of stars. The league makes the stars what they are. Like I said, refer to my Knicks example, if you're gonna use the Cavs example. You could suit up a random D3 basketball squad, and MSG would still fill to capacity.[/QUOTE]
The nba operates when the NBA biggest star's retire because those players are being replaced with younger stars. What about this hypothetical, you take all NBA players right now and put them in some other league. You take D3 players and D-League players and put them in the NBA. Which league is going to do better?
[QUOTE=Euroleague]:roll: :oldlol: :oldlol: :lol :rolleyes: :facepalm
Yeah, you are a real genius. You probably are running for Congress in 2012 with such incredible economic wisdom.[/QUOTE]
prove me wrong, spineless. Tell me that the buss family won't make upwards of 400 million for the NBA if lakers get sold. Give me one piece of data that says owners profits have not always hinged on reselling the team.
[QUOTE=Theoo's Daddy]:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: my timberlands would like to have a meeting with dan gilberts face.[/QUOTE]
Ahhhhh Dan Gilbert. Former Eagle. :applause:
Stern represents all the owners, not just Gibert and Sarver. There is still plenty of time to get a deal done without missing any games. This is good news in my book.
[IMG]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/07/us/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba3/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba3-blog480.jpg[/IMG]
How come the NHL can make profit with 55% of revenue going to players, but 52% is too high for NBA owners?
[QUOTE=tontoz]Stern represents all the owners, not just Gibert and Sarver. There is still plenty of time to get a deal done without missing any games. This is good news in my book.[/QUOTE] This is now also being discussed on the radio in LA that it's not true at all. Some blogger made the story up. I guess we'll see
Does anyone else find it odd that all the major sports league claim profits except the one that chooses to run a woman's league as well?
[QUOTE=Sarcastic][IMG]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/07/us/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba3/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba3-blog480.jpg[/IMG]
How come the NHL can make profit with 55% of revenue going to players, but 52% is too high for NBA owners?[/QUOTE]
Because the revenues in both NFL and MLB are higher than nba. The higher the revenue, the higher the income?And thats the reason why sarver and gilbert are pushing for hard cap to have parity in NBA. Coz parity means more fans watching just like mlb and nfl. And more fans = more revenue.
[URL="http://twitter.com/#!/cavsdan"]http://twitter.com/#!/cavsdan[/URL]
[QUOTE] Some of these NBA 'bloggissists' flat-out make stuff up and then try to dupe readers into believing their fiction is real. Sad & pathetic.
[/QUOTE]
I'd take that as a denial.
[QUOTE=Euroleague]Apparently Sarver and Gilbert are the only NBA owners that are not retarded. The NBA lost $1.845 billion over the last 6 years. It cannot survive if they do not have massive salary cuts.
It will cease to exist under that proposed deal that they supposedly rejected. It just shows what retards guys like Stern, Buss and Dolan are if this is true.[/QUOTE]
Have you seen how the NBA teams can make profit look like losses? They have this thing that somehow estimates how much a player decreases in value in $$$ terms, and put this as a -$XXX on their books, and voil
lol
[QUOTE=knicksman]Because the revenues in both NFL and MLB are higher than nba. The higher the revenue, the higher the income?And thats the reason why sarver and gilbert are pushing for hard cap to have parity in NBA. Coz parity means more fans watching just like mlb and nfl. And more fans = more revenue.[/QUOTE]
Do you understand what percentage means? Seems like you don't.
People don't watch NFL because it has parity. People watch NFL because it has football. NCAA has no parity, and people still watch it. They had 2 unbeaten teams who weren't even allowed to compete for the title last year, and did that stop anyone from watching? Nope. People love football because they play football.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]
As opposed to what? Paul Allen buying another 160 million dollar boat? Mark Cuban spending 90 thousand dollars in the club?[/QUOTE]
lol the owners % doesnt just all go in their pockets. If it did they wouldnt be losing any money and their'd be no lockout.
The owners share goes into the teams/league. You know, the flights, hotels, equipment, arenas, advertising, officials, etc etc.
Owners obviously get a sizable cut in salary but they arent just pocketing their share of the revenue unlike the players, lol
More revenue on the owners side probably means better product for the fans. But we know what this is perceived as. "big rich white owners vs little poor (lol) black players" so the liberal emos and the racially hypersensitive naturally side with the players when really fans have no reason to side with either. Its their negotiations.